freeman3 wrote:Sure. But you have to win through certain analytical pathways. Differenciating status and conduct is one way; figuring out a way to change the rational basis test to a heightened level with regard to the Colorado's discriminating law allegedly posing an undue burden on freedom of religion is another way; and with regard to freedom of expression you're going to have to show a reasonable person would interpret the bakery preparing a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage as a messsge endorsing same-sex marriage.

Come on. You know this isnt the same thing. The guy wanted bakeries to put messages denouncing homosexuality. There was no pro gay message asked to be put on the Christian Baker's wedding cake. This is not even in the same ballpark. There is no double standard. The same case would be if a gay owned bakery decided not to make a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple. If that happened and Colorado Civil Rights Commission said that it was ok...then you would have a complaint. But it didn't and you don't.

freeman3 wrote:Come on. You know this isnt the same thing. The guy wanted bakeries to put messages denouncing homosexuality. There was no pro gay message asked to be put on the Christian Baker's wedding cake. This is not even in the same ballpark.

It may well be exactly the same thing. Here's the "problem": the baker and the homosexual couple spoke for 20 seconds. It's not clear to me that any detail was mentioned. Now, if the Court is going to rule against the baker, they have to base discrimination on a 20-second conversation. I don't believe they will do that.

If you believe the couple came in to ask for a generic cake, it would be interesting to see pictures of what they eventually used. Then again, it could well be that the whole point of the brief conversation was to sue.

There is no double standard. The same case would be if a gay owned bakery decided not to make a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple. If that happened and Colorado Civil Rights Commission said that it was ok...then you would have a complaint. But it didn't and you don't.

They wouldn't do that. The Commission, like most committed progressives, believe discrimination is a one-way street.

The lack of conversation is a problem for the baker. Maybe if the baker had allowed the discussion to continue the gay couple would have demanded things that the baker would have had a right to refuse to do. But he refused to do ANY wedding cake that would be used in a same-sex marriage. The baker has no right to complain...because it was his flat denial that made the conversation so brief.

See...if the Baker were smart he could have gotten into a discussion of the design and hoped the gay couple demanded something--like a written pro-gay message on the cake--that he could refuse to do. Or another alternative is for him to have told the gay couple that he does not approve of gay marriage, but Colorado law requires him to make wedding cakes for same-sex marriages even though he would rather not do it, but that he would still do it to the best of his ability, and maybe they would rather go elsewhere. That might cross a line...but I think it would have given the Christian Baker a much better chance.

freeman3 wrote:The lack of conversation is a problem for the baker. Maybe if the baker had allowed the discussion to continue the gay couple would have demanded things that the baker would have had a right to refuse to do. But he refused to do ANY wedding cake that would be used in a same-sex marriage. The baker has no right to complain...because it was his flat denial that made the conversation so brief.

See...if the Baker were smart he could have gotten into a discussion of the design and hoped the gay couple demanded something--like a written pro-gay message on the cake--that he could refuse to do. Or another alternative is for him to have told the gay couple that he does not approve of gay marriage, but Colorado law requires him to make wedding cakes for same-sex marriages even though he would rather not do it, but that he would still do it to the best of his ability, and maybe they would rather go elsewhere. That might cross a line...but I think it would have given the Christian Baker a much better chance.

I don't think so. One guy's mom went back the next day to ask about it. I don't why she would do that if it was a set-up. Unless there is evidence that they intentionally picked out that place for purposes of litigation...I am going to assume the reason those who support the baker think that way is they think why not just go to another bakery? But I think they were genuinely upset that someone refused to baked their wedding cake because they disapproved of same-sex marriages. Going to another baker does not resolve that.

freeman3 wrote:I don't think so. One guy's mom went back the next day to ask about it. I don't why she would do that if it was a set-up. Unless there is evidence that they intentionally picked out that place for purposes of litigation...I am going to assume the reason those who support the baker think that way is they think why not just go to another bakery? But I think they were genuinely upset that someone refused to baked their wedding cake because they disapproved of same-sex marriages. Going to another baker does not resolve that.

Yes, they were genuinely upset that someone disagrees with their worldview.

Ouch. That must sting. I wonder what it's like?

Grow up. Yes. Grow up. This is not a reason to sue. Sorry. I know you don't agree, but this isn't even on the same continent as not getting served at the Woolworth's counter.

I think the baker wins. They're aiming their case at freedom of speech.

Maybe. Then again...perhaps the Christian Baker could have thought merely baking a cake for a same-sex marriage was not that big of a deal, especially since he is required by the government to not discriminate against gays. There is nothing in the Bible about whether it would be a sin to make food for a gay wedding. It was his personal interpretation that it was sin. Other Christians could reasonably interpret that obligation differently.

Moreover "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities." (Roman 13:1-14) No doubt a Christian could refuse to comply if the government required them to do something that violated a command of God. But...it seems that they should be willing to take the consequences.

I wonder if it violates the free exercise of religion...when the religion itself says Christians should try to obey the secular authorities.

No one is going to hell over a wedding cake. I think God would be much more concerned about a Christian being involved in homosexuality rather than a tangential involvement in a same-sex marriage that is required by the State. This appears to be more of a political act than one based on religious conscience.

freeman3 wrote:Maybe. Then again...perhaps the Christian Baker could have thought merely baking a cake for a same-sex marriage was not that big of a deal, especially since he is required by the government to not discriminate against gays. There is nothing in the Bible about whether it would be a sin to make food for a gay wedding. It was his personal interpretation that it was sin. Other Christians could reasonably interpret that obligation differently.

No.

And, again, you assume the worst--and it's not in evidence. This isn't like being asked to make cole slaw for a homosexual wedding.

Moreover "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities." (Roman 13:1-14) No doubt a Christian could refuse to comply if the government required them to do something that violated a command of God. But...it seems that they should be willing to take the consequences.

And, they have. They are constantly put to death for failing to confess Caesar as god, or failing to worship Allah, or for evangelizing others.

If the American government can force a business to take business it finds morally objectionable, then we really don't have much in the way of freedom, do we?

I wonder if it violates the free exercise of religion...when the religion itself says Christians should try to obey the secular authorities.

One should never violate his/her conscience.

(Acts 24:16 ESV) So I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man.

No one is going to hell over a wedding cake.

So true. One goes to hell for not believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.

I think God would be much more concerned about a Christian being involved in homosexuality rather than a tangential involvement in a same-sex marriage that is required by the State. This appears to be more of a political act than one based on religious conscience.

A political act? That's about 4 too many cushions on a 4-cushion bankshot.

Maybe, the artiste-uh, wedding cake designer--should grow up...

On the contrary, he is the adult. His teensy little feelings weren't hurt. He's not the one who filed a complaint--they were. He had to sue the State because they violated his Constitutional rights.

Justice Anthony Kennedy told a lawyer for the state that tolerance is essential in a free society, but it’s important for tolerance to work in both directions. “It seems to me the state has been neither tolerant or respectful” of the baker’s views, he said.

Justice Kennedy, a moderate conservative who has written major rulings in favor of gay rights, was widely believed to be the key vote in this case. His skepticism of Colorado’s position is not good news for the state. Other conservatives justices also are asking tough questions of the state.

Kennedy, a conservative who sometimes sides with the court’s four liberals in major cases, raised concerns about issuing a ruling siding with the baker that would give a green light to discrimination against gay people.

He mentioned the possibility of a baker putting a sign in his window saying he would not make cakes for gay weddings and wondering if that would be “an affront to the gay community.”

But citing comments made by a commissioner on the state civil rights panel that ruled against the baker, Kennedy said there was evidence of “hostility to religion” and questioned whether that panel’s decision could be allowed to stand.

Well, sounds like if he rules for the baker it will be on such narrow grounds as to be meaningless. He thinks putting a sign in a window saying no gay wedding cakes would be an affront (similar I guess to no Jews or blacks) allowed. But if it's an affront to put up a sign...it's an affront to not bake the cake.

Once you allow discrimination based on religious beliefs...there is no principled end to it. You make a product...you sell to all comers. Period.

freeman3 wrote:Well, sounds like if he rules for the baker it will be on such narrow grounds as to be meaningless. He thinks putting a sign in a window saying no gay wedding cakes would be an affront (similar I guess to no Jews or blacks) allowed. But if it's an affront to put up a sign...it's an affront to not bake the cake.

Once you allow discrimination based on religious beliefs...there is no principled end to it. You make a product...you sell to all comers. Period.

And, the baker does. What he doesn't do: design and decorate cakes that violate his religious beliefs.

Should a Jewish baker make a cake with a Swastika? Should a Muslim be forced to bake a cake that pictures the Temple Mount minus the Dome? Should a Muslim be forced to bake a cake inscribed with "Mohammed was a Pedophile?" Should a Christian have to decorate a cake mocking Christ?

Should a black baker have to decorate a cake celebrating the Klan?

Should a Mexican baker be forced to decorate a cake celebrating the building of Trump's wall?

Why can't a businessman/woman be offended? Why can't they have a line they will not cross? In other words, why do customers get to be complete idiots and use the court to harass businesses? That's exactly what this case is about.

Here's my prediction (for what's worth): 4 conservative justices will side for the Christian Baker on a broad basis, Justice Kennedy will join a more narrow part of the decision having to do with the bias shown towards the baker in this particular case.